Nice comparison shot at www.nasaspaceflight.com showing the top of an F9 first stage and the top of the FH core stage that is almost ready for testing at McGregor. Hard to see much difference in this small low res image.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I assume that the "grab rail" just below the FH logo is an attachment point for the side boosters.Nice comparison shot at www.nasaspaceflight.com showing the top of an F9 first stage and the top of the FH core stage that is almost ready for testing at McGregor. Hard to see much difference in this small low res image.
alseTrick
Active Member
Who in their right mind would "dislike" that?! We should be cleaning ocean and space junk!
Nobody 'disliked' it, I 'disagreed' with the statement that space junk won't start getting cleaned up until some vessel goes around cleaning up ocean junk. That's an unnecessarily restrictive perspective.
I fully understand and agree that space junk is a problem. But here's the thing - any system which is capable of cleaning up space junk will also have the capability of being a de facto anti-satellite weapon. Creating and deploying such a system isn't just a difficult engineering problem, it's also a difficult political problem.
For the SpaceX detail geeks among us: according to Bill Carton on the SpaceX FB group, "Center core is 1033. One side that's been flown is 1023.2. " That flown core is the one used for the Thiacomn-8 mission in 2016.
And Erik Manaus posted, "CRS-9 (B1025.2) is the other side core. its public now per the NSF article on the NROL-76/FH Center Core SF". So that core is from an ISS Dragon resupply mission.
So the two side cores are "flight proven" and the center core is new. SpaceX is making good progress getting all three FH first stages tested at McGregor. This article has good info Falcon Heavy build up begins; SLC-40 pad rebuild progressing well | NASASpaceFlight.com
And Erik Manaus posted, "CRS-9 (B1025.2) is the other side core. its public now per the NSF article on the NROL-76/FH Center Core SF". So that core is from an ISS Dragon resupply mission.
So the two side cores are "flight proven" and the center core is new. SpaceX is making good progress getting all three FH first stages tested at McGregor. This article has good info Falcon Heavy build up begins; SLC-40 pad rebuild progressing well | NASASpaceFlight.com
That implies that anti satellite weapons don't already exist. They do, and have for many decades. Also, and this may be a stretch, but that also implies that the technology doesn't yet exist to clean up space junk. It does. And has for decades. It's easy stuff. Cost is the only barrier.
What doesn't exist yet <wink> is the 'next step' of space junk (or potential space junk) clean up. Things like repair, reuse, repurpose...all the way to refine and re-manufacture...those are the concepts that will help close the cost problem referenced above.
And not to mention, a 'weapon' is unnecessary to be anti satellite. There are plenty of ways to render a satellite unusable that don't require destructive impact...which is a terrible way to wage war in space, because everyone loses. Things like snipping solar array wires. Covering the antenna feeds and/or instrument apertures. Blinding the attitude control sensors.
I think we might be talking past each other just a little bit. In my mind "weapon" doesn't necessarily imply kinetic destruction of a target. As you say, there are other ways to prevent a satellite from serving its intended purpose.
Surely there are things like anti-satellite missiles already, which make the space junk problem worse by creating a bunch of small debris clogging up useful orbits. Cleanup to me implies either destroying, scavenging or de-orbiting this small debris. What I meant with my comment was, any technology that can do those things to small debris could also do it to a functioning satellite. And this isn't necessarily just a nation-state problem. Suppose Commercial CommSat Operator Alpha decides that Commercial CommSat Operator Beta is horning in on their turf, and somehow arranges to secretly disable one of Beta's birds? How would Beta know for sure what happened?
I'm just saying space cleanup technology, like many technologies, has the potential for abuse and bears careful watching.
I got that part. What I was trying to say is that we're already living in that world. Its not a problem of the future. The only barrier is cost. Its simply cost prohibitive to try and sabotage your commercial competitor's on orbit hardware.
Today its absolutely a nation state problem. Spacecraft--at least US spacecraft--are still considered defense articles.
Russian Luch Satellite Relocates — Next to Another Intelsat Craft - SpaceNews.com
That aspect aside, for the foreseeable future, everybody knows and will know what everybody else hucks into space--or at least that is the case for the major players. The DOD is basically The Eye Of Sauron when it comes to stuff in earth orbit. They track everything. They know the result of every launch. The Russians no doubt have the same thing. ESA too. The US and Russia can't risk the fallout (pun intended) of an unannounced launch, even if its a black mission. So, for the foreseeable future, someone else knows what's going on with your stuff on orbit. And those someones are entities with a pretty low tolerance for hijinx. If two commercial entities are bickering with orbital assests its going to get shut down ASAP before the industry has a chance to get even close to that slippery slope.
I mean, I can't disagree with the statement, but I think the implied downside in the statement is seriously overstated. That's really my main point here.
Its definitely OT for the thread and can be spun off, but its absolutely on topic for this subforum...
This subforum is about SpaceX. Discussions about how to clean up space debris are, in my opinion, off topic for this forum. But I'm not the moderator.
It may not directly be related to SpaceX, but it's also not totally irrelevant. Space junk is something that could very much impact SpaceX (literally).
And is something spacex is actively trying to minimize with their launch vehicles. (Most is terrestrial junk, of course...)
AND is something spacex absolutely will have to deal with when they start filling out their lasercomm constellation. One of the biggest concerns with operating a mega constellation with hundreds/thousands of spacecraft on a bunch of intersecting planes is that a dead unit has the potential to be WAY more of a problem than a dead unit in any other scenario, including geosynchronous. Getting that unit out of the way of the other XXX or XXXX units is practically imperative.
Mike1080i
Member
FH center core static test fire in McGregor, TX.
SpaceX on Twitter
SpaceX on Twitter
Yep, good news that the FH core has had a static fire. I assume there will be a few more before it gets sent eastward.
Progress!
Progress!
e-FTW
New electron smell
On Thaicom-8:
"
That core performed a hot entry landing on the ASDS (Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship) barge Of Course I Still Love You in the Atlantic, suffering a crumpled landing leg that lovingly earned the core the unofficial nickname “The Leaning Tower Of Thaicom-8”.
"
Haha!
OK, why is there a black plume and a white plume. One could guess that the black plume comes from the turbopump exhaust, but there are nine of them and their plumes would just get mixed up with the main plume.
Mike1080i
Member
The black plume is from the engines burning RP-1 (recall the soot on recovered first stages), the white plume should be steam from the water used for sound suppression and cooling.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
